BIJAYALAKSHMI DASH vs EAST COAST RAILWAY on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (ADMN.):

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking for direction to the respondents to include the name of her adopted RAVI KUMAR

son and daughter, to disburse the pending allowances in respect of her adopted daughter for the year 2022-24 by quashing Orders dated 26.04.2024 and 22.10.2024, in which the respondents refused to include their names as also deleted the name of her daughter earlier entered in her service record.

2. This was opposed by the respondents inter alia stating infra- [a] The applicant, who had married in 2001, got judicially separated from her husband vide divorce decree dated 27.04.2012. She submitted representation dated 15.09.2014, along with copy of Adoption Deed dated 26.08.2014 and Birth Certificate of adopted daughter, to R-2 for inclusion of her adopted daughter namely Kumari Shreeya Kamalini Dash with in her official records with an undertaking that she had no son or daughter, which prayer was ultimately accepted vide letter dated 19.08.2015 [A/3]. [b] While the matter stood thus, applicant submitted another application dated 07.04.2022, along with adoption deed bearing No. 1552200211, for inclusion of Sri Satya Prasad Dash, DoB 19.04.2008, in her official records as her adopted son, which was regretted by the respondents vide letter dated 01.11.2022 stating therein that Smt. Bijaya Laxmi Das had adopted one girl child RAVI KUMAR

named Ku. Shreeya Kamalini Das in the year 2015. Now, she is claiming to have adopted a male child in 2010, no reason have been offered to justify, why she did not inform the adoption of the male child in 2015. It was also observed that adopted son's record continues in the name of his natural parents. As such, the adoption deed is dubious. [c] In response thereto, applicant again made prayer before the respondents that the document of adoptive son always prepared in the name of his natural parents and, in due course basing on the registered deed of adoption, it will be changed in all official records. Whereas, the name of the natural parents, i.e. Sri Manmath Dash and Smt. Subhra Rani Dash, were reflected in Matriculation Certificate of male child, claimed to be adopted, i.e. Sri Satya Parasad Dash, which was published on 18.05.2023 despite the adoption deed was executed vide dated 29.03.2022 before the Registering Officer, Delang. However, the HSC certificate bearing Sr. No. 233154606, dated 18.05.2023 of Sri Satya Prasad Dash was verified from Debaguru Adarsha Bidyalaya, Mugamanda, Khordha. The Headmaster of concerned High School vide letter dated 11.06.2024 informed that the HSC RAVI KUMAR

certificate of Sri Satya Prasad Dash is genuine wherein the names of his natural father and mother are reflected as Manmath Dash and Subhrarani Dash. Hence, the adoption of Sri Satya Prasad Dash is dubious and it has been done with malafide intention by the applicant to get Railway benefits of the children of her brother Sri Manmath Dash. [d] Thereafter, respondents vide letter dated 06.02.2024 sought justification from the applicant for taking 12 years to intimate to the Railway Administration regarding the adoption of a male child in the year 2010 and requesting to add the same in her service record after a lapse of 14 years, i.e. on 09.11.2023. In her reply dated 14.02.2024, it has been stated that she had adopted the son since 2010 but no registered document was executed at that time and executed the same on 29.03.2022 before the registering officer, Delang, which reason was not accepted in view of the provisions made under Section-8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, (HAМА, 1956) wherein it is provided that “any female Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption: Provided that, if she has a husband living, she shall not adopt a son or daughter RAVI KUMAR

except with the consent of her husband unless the husband has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind”. But, in the adoption, the consent of her husband was not taken, although, judicial separation made afterwards. [e] The applicant was given opportunity as to why the nqame of her adopted daughter recorded in the service book shall not be deleted. Applicant submitted her show cause reply dated 05.07.2024 stating that a married woman can also adopt with the consent of husband and his consent can be dispensed with under the three legal incapacities. The reply of the applicant was duly considered and it was found that the adoption of Sri Satya Prasad Dash had taken place on 10.04.2010, whereas the applicant sought for inclusion of his same in the service record on 07.04.2022. Similarly, the adoption of Miss Shreeya Kamalini Dash was made on 20.02.2015, whereas the adoption was given effect on 17.11.2005, when applicant’s marriage was not dissolved by that time and her husband was alive. Further, her husband’s consent was not taken as per the adoption deed. As such, the RAVI KUMAR

adoption of Miss Shreeya Kamalini Dash and Sri Satya Prasad Dash, being against Section-8 of HAMА Act, 1956, was regretted by the Respondents vide letter dated 22.10.2024. Hence, it is the case of the respondents that no illegality or irregularity committed by them in issuing the orders, which have been impugned by the applicant in this OA and, thus, the OA being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

3. Heard.

4. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the applicant, on ritual customs, adopted the daughter in the year 2005 in the presence of her husband and Registered Deed was made on 20.02.2015, admittedly, after the judicial separation from her husband. She had also adopted the son through Registered Deed after judicial separation from her husband. There is no bar under the provision for adoption of son or daughter by the divorced lady. Therefore, the ground based on which the prayer of the applicant was rejected shows a complete non-application of mind. Further, it is stated that Registered Deed adopting son and daughter before the appropriate competent authority are not in dispute. It is also not the case of the respondents that the said RAVI KUMAR

adopted deed has been challenged by them or by the natural parents of the child or any other person and meanwhile got stayed. The provision of Section-8 of HAMА Act, 1956, would have been insisted upon by the Registering Authority if at all the said provision was at all warranted in the case. Once, the competent Registering Authority made the Registration Deed by accepting the consent, the same has biding effect not only to the authorities of the Railways but also between the natural parents and the applicant. In the said circumstances, the authorities of the Railways do not possess any competency, authority of jurisdiction not to accept the Registered Deed on the plea as raised. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicant adopted and sought inclusion after abandonment due to retirement or any other reason from the Railways because she is still continuing in service. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in view of the above, it cannot be ruled out that no injustice was caused in the decision making process of the matter requiring judicial intervention to set right such wrongful action by this Bench.

RAVI KUMAR

5. This Bench finds merit on the submissions made by the applicant that the applicant, on ritual customs, adopted the daughter in the year 2005 in the presence of her husband and Registered Deed was made on 20.02.2015, admittedly, after the judicial separation from her husband. She had also adopted the son through Registered Deed after judicial separation from her husband. There is no bar under the provision for adoption of son or daughter by the divorced lady. Be that as it may, it is a fact that as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956 and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, a married woman, who has a living husband cannot adopt a child on her own. The consent of both spouses is mandatory for a joint or independent adoption during a subsisting marriage and, at the same time, the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly ruled that if a registered document, recording an adoption is produced, the administrative authorities—"shall presume" that the adoption complies with the law unless it is explicitly disproved by a competent court of law being challenged the adoption deed. An employer or department does not act as a Court of Law and, thus, they cannot unilaterally declare a registered deed invalid or sham merely because the RAVI KUMAR

adoption deed was made without the consent of adoptive husband or wife. It is noted that the burden entirely shifts to whoever challenges the deed. If the employer or a third party doubts the sonship/daughtership, they must file an independent civil suit to disprove it. Until a competent civil court cancels the deed, it remains legally binding. In the present case, admittedly, the Registered Deeds are still in force and ,in such circumstances, rejection of the request to enter the names of the adopted son and daughter and/or deletion of the name of the adopted daughter earlier included in the service record o the applicant cannot stand on the litmus test of judicial scrutiny on the strength of the valid registered deed.

6. The fortiori of the discussions made above, is that this OA succeeds. The impugned orders dated 26.04.2024 and 22.10.2024 are hereby quashed. The deletion of the name of the adopted daughter from the service record of the applint is held bad in law. Respondents are directed to include the names of the adopted daughter and son in the service record of the applicant based on the Registered Deed produced by the applicant. It is also made clear that since the deletion of name of the daughter is held bad in RAVI KUMAR

10 O.A.No. 260/00152 of 2025 law, she shall be entitled to the allowances as prayed by the applicant in this OA. The respondents are directed to issue the letter of confirmation to the above effect within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Costs made easy.

7. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS)

Member (Admn.)

RK/PS RAVI KUMAR